Ethics and Professional Practice: Analyzing Ben's Case Study (FLD201)

This report presents an analysis of a case study involving Ben, a researcher in community services, and Max, a 14-year-old victim of abuse. The report outlines the facts of the case, highlighting the ethical conflicts arising from Ben's promise of confidentiality to Max, who revealed physical abuse by his stepfather. Key ethical issues, including informed consent, beneficence, and respect for anonymity, are explored. The report examines various ethical decision-making approaches, such as utilitarian, rights-based, justice, common good, and virtue ethics, to guide Ben's actions. Ultimately, the report concludes that Ben is ethically obligated to report the abuse due to the paramount importance of Max's safety, aligning with the principles of beneficence and the code of ethics, despite the confidentiality promise. The summary also references relevant literature to support the ethical arguments presented.

1
Running Head: ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Paper Title Capitalized and Centered
Name of Student
Institution affiliation

2
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Table of Contents
FACTS OF THE CASE.............................................................................................................3
RELEVANT ETHICAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE CASE...............................................3
a. Informed consent.............................................................................................................3
b. Beneficence.....................................................................................................................4
c. Respect for anonymity and confidentiality.....................................................................4
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING RAISED BY THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE CASE.....5
I. Utilitarian approach.........................................................................................................5
II. Rights approach...............................................................................................................5
III. Justice approach...........................................................................................................5
IV. Common good approach..............................................................................................5
V. Virtue approach...............................................................................................................5
SUMMARY OF THE OUTCOMES OR POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE CASE..............6
References..................................................................................................................................7

3
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
FACTS OF THE CASE
There are two characters in this case, Ben and Max. Both are involved in that Ben has been
engaged to research the experiences of teenagers who have been bullied at school while max
is a victim of violence. Max is 14 years old and is living with his step-dad. Max is a student
who is gay. Apparently, Max has undergone physical abuse by his step-dad but at home and
not at school. The reason for the violence is that the stepfather wants him to straighten up and
not be gay. During the discussion between the two, Max made it clear to Ben that he did not
want anyone to know about this situation. This was in fact, despite the fact that his step-dad
had promised to kill him. Of course, being human, Ben is concerned with the abuse. He wants
to report this case, but again he has promised Max that their discussion will remain
confidential and he will not tell a word to anyone. The issue now comes as to what Ben can
do, despite the assurance of confidentiality.
RELEVANT ETHICAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE CASE
Various ethical issues arise from this case but are majorly on Ben to make the decisions.
Should Ben report the problem despite promising that the matter would be confidential?
According to ethical standards, what is the best way to approach this case? What will
reporting or keeping quiet about the issue impact on Ben's ethical standards? These are
ethical questions that need to be answered. Both sides of the coin are not entirely fair to Ben’s
ethical standards, but he will still have to make a choice (Lunnay, Borlagdan, McNaughton &
Ward, 2015). This is one of the scenarios where doing nothing amounts to making a decision
towards the case. This is a situation where the decision to be made is binary, and there is no
escape regarding the incident (Walliman, 2017).
The primary ethical issues raised in this case include;
a. Informed consent- This is one of the primary ethical issues when one is conducting
research. In informed consent, individuals who are conducting research are to make

4
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
decisions that are well informed. So, in this case, informed consent will seek to
incorporate the rights of autonomous individuals through self-determination (Grady,
2015).
In our case, Ben was aware of what could happen before he took up to conduct the research.
Being left to make such difficult decisions should have been in the know before he started.
b. Beneficence-This is an ethical issue that suggests that one should be of benefit rather
than harm. Different authors argue that it is a challenge to know which decision will
be of benefit. A researcher is possibly to learn intimate details of the participant's
lives, but at all costs should be able to avoid opening old wounds (Persson, 2017).
Ben has learned a lot about Max while conducting his research but what he chooses to do
with the information will determine whether he will be of benefit or not. Looking at the
decision to be made, one cannot know the impact of different choices until they make them.
c. Respect for anonymity and confidentiality- This is an issue that arises in several
significant fields including doctor-patient confidentiality, attorney-client privilege
among many more. Some scholars argue that this issue of privacy is closely related to
the rights of beneficence and respect for dignity and fidelity. Under this ethical issue,
the researcher is expected to be to uphold loyalty that is beyond the normal.
Researchers have gone to the extent of discussing situations where the confidentiality
between two people has to be broken because of a moral duty to protect society. The
utilitarian theory, which talks of all the interests involved in the community, this
theory holds the happiness of the society to be of the highest importance and value. In
all scenarios, the researcher is always left with several problems about maintaining
confidentiality (Lancaster, 2017).

5
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING RAISED BY THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
CASE
The stakeholders involved in this case will be decided by Ben, who is the researcher and
has a decision to make. Anyone Ben chooses to discuss the matter with will be a
stakeholder. If on the other hand he decides to do nothing about it, there won't be
stakeholders. To be able to arrive at making ethical decisions, especially when the
situations are complex, it is essential to approach the situations using different
dimensions. Some of these approaches include;
I. Utilitarian approach- this approach was introduced in the 19th Century by
Jeremy Bentlam and John Stuart. This approach suggests that ethical reasons are
those that consist of a significant balance of good over evil. With this approach, it
would be right to fight terrorism in trying to curb the death of innocent (Savaux et
al., 2017).
II. Rights approach- Immanuel Kant is the developer of this approach in which he
suggests that all the people in the world have the right to do whatever they want
because they have dignity.
III. Justice approach- this emanated from Aristotle and other Greek Philosophers. It
suggests that all equals are to be treated equally. With this approach, one needs to
ask themselves how right the path they are taking is? (Shapiro & Stefkovich,
2016).
IV. Common good approach- as the name suggests, the ethical decisions that are
taken need to result in everyone’s advantage (Lawton & Páez, 2015).
V. Virtue approach- this theory suggests that for an action to be considered ethical,
it needs to be consistent with particular virtues that are essential in the
development of humanity.

6
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
SUMMARY OF THE OUTCOMES OR POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE CASE
Ben will have to report the case because it is of more benefit rather than harm. It is
impossible to hold privacy over violence as discussed in beneficence. Reporting this matter is
a well informed decision that Ben is mandated to do and a well weighed decision in
consideration of all the aspects under the code of ethics. The safety of the client in this case is
of the highest value as compared to the other ethical issues and this is in accordance to the
code of ethics. The virtue approach also suggests that Ben should report the issue as it is
something human to do.

7
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
References
Grady, C. (2015). Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. New England
Journal of Medicine, 372(9), 855-862.
Lancaster, K. (2017). Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing:
conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, 20(1), 93-103.
Lawton, A., & Páez, I. (2015). Developing a framework for ethical leadership. Journal of
Business Ethics, 130(3), 639-649.
Lunnay, B., Borlagdan, J., McNaughton, D., & Ward, P. (2015). Ethical use of social media
to facilitate qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 25(1), 99-109.
Persson, I. (2017). Inclusive Ethics: Extending Beneficence and Egalitarian Justice. Oxford
University Press.
Savaux, J., Vion, J., Piechowiak, S., Mandiau, R., Matsui, T., Hirayama, K., ... & Silaghi, M.
(2017, May). Utilitarian approach to privacy in distributed constraint optimization
problems. In The Thirtieth International Flairs Conference.
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in
education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge.
Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.